is a post from: Hadron blog
Published this week in Science, the findings demonstrate that the antimalarial candidate, spiroindolone NITD609, is effective against both strains of the malaria parasite, Plasmodium (P.) falciparum and P. vivax. Through a novel mechanism, NITD609 rapidly clears plasmodium in a malaria mouse model and shows pharmacological properties compatible with a once-daily dosing regimen.
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), in 2008 there were approximately 247 million cases of malaria, causing nearly one million deaths, mostly among young children in Africa. Although malaria is preventable and curable, it is estimated that in Africa, a child dies every 45 seconds from the disease.[1]
“Malaria remains a scourge,” said Mark Fishman, president, Novartis Institutes for BioMedical Research. “The parasite has demonstrated a frustrating ability to outwit new medicines, from quinine to today’s unsettling increased tolerance to artemisinin derivatives. We are delighted that our scientists could provide this potential new malaria therapy, based on an unprecedented chemical structure and directed to a novel target.”
Further regulatory pharmacological and safety evaluation is currently ongoing and, provided the outcome of these studies is favorable, the compound could progress to Phase I human trials.
A novel mechanism of action
Despite significant advances in Plasmodium genome biology, the identification and validation of new drug targets has proven challenging. In the Science paper the research team outlines how they identified a potential target by identifying mutations that decreased the parasite’s sensitivity to this novel compound class.
“Using a novel Plasmodium whole-cell assay we were able to tap into the Novartis archive of 12,000 pure natural products and synthetic compounds to identify 275 compounds highly active against P. falciparum, the most prevalent and deadly form of malaria,” said Novartis Institute for Tropical Disease’s Bryan Yeung, project team head. “From this set all but 17 compounds were discarded for failing to meet pharmacological and efficacy standards. Of the remaining compound class, spirotetrahydro-beta-carbolines or spiroindolones have favorable physical and chemical properties for drug development as well as a mechanism of action distinct from the currently used therapies based on aminoquinolines and artemisinin derivatives.”
Combating malaria- a sustainable commitment
As of June 2010, Novartis has delivered over 340 million of its antimalarial treatments without profit, to more than 60 malaria-endemic countries for public sector use, making Novartis the leading pharmaceutical partner in the fight against malaria. But Novartis does more than providing effective treatment. Since the beginning of its Malaria Initiatives program Novartis has pioneered access to medicines in the developing world through an innovative not-for-profit distribution concept, coordination of best practice sharing workshops, development of new formulations and capacity building. The program proves that increasing access is not just a matter of buying drugs and distributing them, it is about incorporating training, logistics management and other types of technical expertise to ensure long-term health impacts.
Novartis and collaborators discover novel antimalarial drug candidate is a post from: Hadron blog
NEW DELHI: Chocolates as such are considered intoxicating for many, and an American entrepreneur now wants to give it a new high by lacing the bitter-sweet dessert with very much an Indian intoxicant ‘Bhang’ and trademark it too.
The product, to be produced and sold in the US for now and possibly in our country later, will be called ‘Bhang: The Original Cannabis Chocolate’ and the New Mexico-based chololateur has sought a trademark for the same. If the trademark is granted, the Bhang word cannot be used for a chocolate or candy product by anyone else.
Synonymous with festivals like Holi and Shivratri and associated with Lord Shiva in the Hindu mythology, ‘Bhang’ is one of the few legally available preparations of cannabis plant in the country. It is smoked and also consumed as a beverage or doughed up as semi-solid candies.
Adding a new recipe of this ancient Indian intoxicant, chocolateur Scott J Van Rixel plans to start selling at least two types of ‘Bhang’ chocolates soon in the US and will later consider expanding to India, if regulations permit.
In response to emailed queries on the matter, Rixel told PTI from California that “sky is the limit” when it comes to the market potential for these new chocolates, as there is no “high-end cannabis chocolate” available.
Rixel has already incorporated a company named ‘Bhang Chocolate Company Inc’ for this new venture and is also selling merchandise items like T-shirts and baseball caps with the name and logo of ‘Bhang Chocolate’ embossed on them as part of a marketing and brand recognition exercise.
“Yes, we have an extensive line of merchandise that will be available internationally,” Rixel said.
Asked whether he will consider producing and selling these chocolates here, Rixel said, “I am not familiar enough with India’s cannabis laws, but would love to to do so, even if it is the THC-free white label products.”
Rixel plans to sell two types of Bhang chocolates — a white label containing hemp seeds and hemp oil and the black label with THC containing Marijuana.
Hemp and marijuana are two forms of cannabis plants and the former has very low THC (Tetrahydrocannabinol) content, the main psychoactive substance found in cannabis plants.
In India, Bhang is made of dried leaves and flowering shoots of hemp plants, which also produces ganja and charas.
Read more: US firm plans to sell ‘Bhang’ chocolates, seeks trademark – US – World – The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/US-firm-plans-to-sell-Bhang-chocolates-seeks-trademark/articleshow/6274117.cms#ixzz0w6dZ2Pwt
US firm plans to sell ‘Bhang’ chocolates, seeks trademark is a post from: Hadron blog
According to the lawsuit filed by by XPRT in theU.S. District Court
in Delaware, eBay unfairly stole information shared in confidence by the inventors of XPRT’s own patents and incorporated it into features in PayPal and similar electronic payment systems.
XPRT, based in Greenwich, Connecticut, asserted that eBay infringed six patents and stole trade secrets. The lawsuit also names eBay subsidiaries PayPal Inc., Bill Me Later Inc., Shopping.com, Inc., and StubHub Inc. as defendants in the lawsuit.
“Through PayPal, eBay has become the pre-eminent leader in the online payment arena and significant portions of eBay’s PayPal activities, both past and present, read directly on XPRT’s patents claims,” XPRT said in the lawsuit.
XPRT said in the lawsuit that the inventors of one of its patents contacted eBay in 2001 to gauge the company’s interest in using the patent-pending technology and offered a preview of their patent applications. The inventors told the online retailer that systems such as PayPal, which eBay did not own at the time, could be modified to use the concept.
However, the inventors failed to get a response to a follow-up letter, which asked eBay’s lawyer if the company was interested in the technology. Shortly thereafter, eBay announced its intention to buy PayPal and acquired PayPal for $1.5 billion in 2002.
“EBay’s familiarity with the confidential information provided by the Inventors allowed eBay to recognize the advantages it would realize by acquiring, modifying and integrating PayPal’s payment platform with eBay’s own e-commerce payment platform. EBay also knew or should have known that such modification and combination would violate Inventors’ patent application claims should they issue as patents,” XPRT said.
The lawsuit says that when eBay filed a patent application on April 30, 2003, titled “Method and System to Automate Payment for a Commerce Transaction,” it failed to tell the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that it knew of XPRT’s own patent applications. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has rejected eBay’s application four times, citing XPRT’s patents, the suit says.
By filing for a similar patent, eBay “admitted the patentability of the inventors’ claims,” the complaint said.
XPRT noted that prior to the fourth quarter of 2002, eBay’s revenue from payment activities was not separately reported in its financial statements. From the fourth quarter of 2002, when eBay acquired Paypal, through 2009, eBay has publicly reported in excess of 4.4 billion transactions successfully completed in the eBay-PayPal payment system, resulting in direct transaction payment revenues in excess of $10 billion, according to XPRT.
EBay Sued For $3.8 Bln In Patent Infringement Lawsuit is a post from: Hadron blog
It is therefore necessary to Finjan damages and order five companies should prohibit the sale of allegedly infringing software copyright Finjan.
Finjan, McAfee and Symantec sued for patent infringement is a post from: Hadron blog
is a post from: Hadron blog
The agency is already probing Apple’s own patent infringement complaint against HTC. Apple has alleged that HTC makes use of patents linked to the user interface of its popular iPhone, along with an array of other software and hardware technologies.
HTC, which manufactures handsets running the Google Android OS as well as Windows Mobile, requested ITC last month to block the import of the leading Apple devices in the US, claiming that the device violate HTC’s handset hardware and software patents, which the company has not yet publicly stated.
According to ITC, the products related to its investigations will include “portable electronic devices that utilize certain power management methods and may incorporate hardware andsoftware for telephone directories within mobile telephone systems.”
An evidential hearing to ascertain the essential grounds of the HTC complaint will be held by anadministrative law judge for the agency, which has 45 days to announce a target date for finishing the investigation.
Source: Top News; Sat, 06/12/2010 – 08:54
ITC to investigate HTC’s patent-infringement complaint against Apple is a post from: Hadron blog
Dr. Reddy’s which had received approval from the US FDA to market the drug in March has said that it disagreed with the court’s decision and would file an appeal.
According to estimates, the market size for this drug is around $200 million.
The District Court of New Jersey granted a preliminary injunction on the launch of Allegra D 24 based on an application filed by Albany Molecular Research Inc (AMRI) and Sanofi-Aventis.
In September 2009, AMRI filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the court against Dr. Reddy’s Lab for infringement of one of its patents related to the manufacturing process for the active ingredient in Allegra, Allegra-D 12, and Allegra-D 24 hour and joined hands with French drug maker Sanofi-Aventis SA, which sells Allegra to file the law suit.
Dr. Reddy’s had agreed to hold the launch of Allegra-D in the U.S. markets until the hearing in May. Now the company would need to wait further till its appeal is taken up for hearing.
Source: The Hindu; June 12, 2010
U.S. court refrains Dr. Reddy’s from launching Allegra is a post from: Hadron blog
PureDepth, whose majority 52% owner is Warehouse founder Stephen Tindall’s investment vehicle K1W1, is taking on a company called NCP Trading in the High Court at Auckland.
While NCP, a small local importer of Konka-branded televisions, is a relative minnow, LG has joined the proceedings and it is possible others, such as Samsung, will too.
That’s because if PureDepth wins the case, the precedent could have global implications and affect a much broader range of television manufacturers, perhaps forcing them to license PureDepth’s technology.
According to a judgement of the High Court at Auckland, PureDepth disassembled a Konka TV expecting to find componentry from a Taiwanese company CMO, with which it had previously tried to negotiate a licensing agreement. Instead it found componentry from LG which it also felt breached its patent. Another television contained similar componentry from Samsung.
According to affidavits filed with the court, LG intends to file a counterclaim for revocation of the patent concerned. It appears as if that counterclaim will be based on a claim of “prior art”, or that the invention patented by PureDepth already existed, under a Japanese patent.
PureDepth says it holds an identical patent for the technology in the US, meaning a result in New Zealand could have much broader implications for television manufacturers and component makers.
“If this contention is true, and if PureDepth is successful in obtaining a finding of infringement of the New Zealand patent by way of the Konka television sets having LG backlighting display units, then such a judgement may well have considerable commercial ramifications in the US marketplace, being one of vastly greater size than that of New Zealand,” Justice Fogarty writes in allowing LG to join the case and placing it on a fast track for further hearing.
PureDepth chief executive officer Andy Wood was not prepared to comment on the case.
The company, which holds 86 patents and has a further 64 pending according to Wood, is in the process of deregistering from the US OTC Bulletin Board, a subsidiary trading system of the Nasdaq high technology stock exchange.
Bleeding cash, it has slashed staff worldwide and refocused on two core markets: providing technology for Japan’s massive Pachinko and Pachislot gaming market and a new mobile platform Wood was not prepared to discuss, apart from saying he was in discussions with several well-known companies to evaluate PureDepth’s systems.
Wood says most of the remaining staff in Auckland are focused on research and development. The company has sufficient capital to continue operations through revenue from a licensing agreement with New York-listed International Game Technologies. It also licences to Sanyo.
PureDepth was founded in 1999 as Deep Video Imaging by Power Beat founder Peter Witehira and Gabriel Engel. Witehira was the inventor of a “never go flat” car battery. Witehira settled a long-running disagreement with Tindall in 2004, selling his stake in the Deep Video Imaging for $520,000.
Tindall’s Warehouse does not sell Konka televisions. Dick Smith does.
Source: Sunday Star Times; 05:00 13/06/2010
Samsung may join LG in NZ patent fight is a post from: Hadron blog
Guitar manufacturer Gibson has reached full settlement with the devlopers of the Rock Band game over patent infringement claims.
The original action was taken against Viacom, Harmonix and Electronic Arts – developers of the game – in 2008.
Bloomberg reports that the case hinged on Gibson’s filing of a patent in 1999 “for a way of using a musical instrument to take part in a simulated concert”.
Financial terms of the settlement were not disclosed. Outstanding actions take by Gibson against six major retailers who carried the games – including Wal-Mart and Amazon – are still to be resolved.
The latest game in the Rock Band franchise, built around the music of Green Day, was released this week. Rock Band 3 is currently in development and due to be released towards the end of the year.
Source: http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1041469&c=1
Gibson settles patent infringement case with Rock Band is a post from: Hadron blog
Pursuant to the agreement, MAHA has admitted the validity and enforceability of Gray Manufacturing’s U.S. Patent No. 6,634,461 “Coordinated Lift System”, U.S. Patent No. 7,014,012 “Coordinated Lift System”, and U.S. Patent No. 7,219,770 “Coordinated Lift System with User Selectable RF Channels,” related to wireless lifting devices. MAHA has also agreed not to infringe on the Patents in the future. Gray Manufacturing’s President Stet Schanze stated that he is very pleased with the agreement and to have the matter resolved with MAHA.
In a separate matter Schanze noted that Gray continues to pursue its federal lawsuit against Stertil-Koni and Stertil B.V. for patent infringement related to the same patents in the MAHA lawsuit and fully expects the federal court to uphold the validity of Gray’s patents.
Source: http://www.stnonline.com/home/press-releases/2433-gray-manufacturing-reaches-settlement-agreement-on-patent-infringement-lawsuit
Gray Manufacturing Reaches Settlement Agreement on Patent Infringement Lawsuit is a post from: Hadron blog
The case is captioned as Smart Metric v. MasterCard et. Al, case no. 2:10-cv-01864-JHN
As previously disclosed, on March 15, 2010 SMME filed a complaint for patent infringement against VISA and MasterCard. In response, on May 6, 2010 VISA and on May 14, 2010 MasterCard filed motions to dismiss. On May 28, 2010 plaintiff SMME filed a first amended complaint.
SmartMetric CEO Colin Hendrick stated, “We are extremely pleased by the district court’s prompt entry of an Order denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss. As alleged in the Company’s amended complaint, the Company believes and therefore has alleged that defendant VISA’s PAYWAVE card and defendant MasterCard’s PAYPASS card infringe on the Company’s various patents. In particular, the Company is the owner of United States Patent No. 6,792,464 (the ‘464 patent’). The 464 patent provides the Company with intellectual property rights for ‘a system for automatic connection to a network.’”
About SmartMetric, Inc. SmartMetric, Inc. has developed a portable biometric identity and transaction card capable of storing a wide variety of personal information while protecting you against identity theft and fraud. It is one of the most advanced portable identity authentication solutions in the world today. The card contains a biometric fingerprint scanner and reader which only you can unlock and is smaller and thinner than a credit card. The SmartMetric card is ideal for a wide range of consumers, including Personal, Government and Corporate.
Source: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/smartmetric-updates-patent-infringement-lawsuit-2010-06-07?reflink=MW_news_stmp
SmartMetric Updates Patent Infringement Lawsuit is a post from: Hadron blog
Celgene initiated the dispute in January 2007, after Barr filed an ANDA for generic thalidomide in September 2006 (see “Court Report,” February 28, 2007). Celgene claimed that Barr’s product infringed seven of its patents, and then added another asserted patent in a second lawsuit against Barr in August 2007 (see “Court Report,” September 3, 2007). Barr responded in October 2007 by filing its own suit, alleging that Celgene failed to disclose material information to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and that Celgene interfered with its attempts to get the raw material needed for studies required to file its ANDA. Celgene filed a third lawsuit before the District Court consolidated these actions in July 2008. Finally, in December 2008, Celgene filed an amended complaint alleging infringement of the three patents currently at issue: U.S. Patent Nos. 5,629,327; 6,235,756; and 7,435,745.
On May 26, Judge Wigenton of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey approved the parties’ stipulation of dismissal without prejudice of all claims and counterclaims asserted in the case. Barr’s antitrust claims were dismissed with prejudice. Each party agreed to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees in the matter.
Source: http://www.patentdocs.org/2010/06/biotechpharma-docket.html
Celgene, Barr Resolve Patent Dispute over Generic Thalomid is a post from: Hadron blog
Government figures confirm that most innovation comes out of small and medium-sized enterprises, which employ over 60% of the UK workforce. Yet no SME can realistically enforce a patent in the UK if the alleged infringer is a large corporation. Anyone can challenge the validity of a patent immediately it is granted and typically do when large royalties are potentially at stake. The UKIPO takes no responsibility for any of its patent decisions. The expensive court process prevents SMEs taking enforcement action, thus assisting corporate infringement – a point the Gowers report confirmed in 2006. Meantime the UKIPO continues to mis-sell patents as offering protection.
Unless patent enforcement is radically improved first, there seems little point in announcing an acceleration in granting patents as an economic measure. Employing patent examiners in the meantime is a good example of wasted public expenditure, unless government’s aim is to assist corporates only. Those SMEs that create innovation await even the courtesy of a response to multiple requests for a meeting with leaders of the new government.
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jun/04/patents-wont-help-small-business
Patent policy won’t help small business is a post from: Hadron blog
Source: http://legal.tmcnet.com/topics/legal/articles/87405-backweb-resolves-patent-infringement-lawsuit-against-symantec.htm
BackWeb Resolves Patent Infringement Lawsuit Against Symantec is a post from: Hadron blog